Oh ghod

[lovingboth]

There's been another conviction for HIV transmission, this time of a woman.

As ever, there is zero evidence that, despite the comment in the story, the infection was "deliberate".

I am more surprised that it's so hard to find the details. "A woman with HIV could infect you lads!" (my paraphrasing) was one of the HEA's more notorious ads, not least because the viewer was supposed to be horrified that she would look the same as she did now in several years time. Presumably, they'd be happier if she died quickly.

But on the BBC's website, it's not in the news page, not in health, not on the Wales page, but only on the SE Wales one. A bit of browsing reveals that it's copied from a Press Association story, not that the BBC acknowledge that...

Comments

[zotz]

I believe they're maintaining that the story is substantially true, although they've admitted that if so it must have happened a couple of weeks after they said it did, which would mean that it was after Tate's funeral rather than on the way to it.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's my understanding too - but it's not clear whether that's what they're saying to the press or what they're saying in court. It's probably the only defence available from the given information.

I wanted to be sure that they aren't trying on a Reynolds v Times qualified privilege defence - i.e. that it was responsible journalism. If they were it would probably have been reported on, since that's still exciting new law. (If such a thing isn't an oxymoron.)

[lovingboth]

Looks to be what's being said in court - see today's evidence.

[zotz]

The defence hasn't started yet, of course, but for what it's worth the last sentence of today's Guardian coverage reads:

"However, Condé Nast, which denies libel, says the article is substantially true and will call Mr Lapham and a friend who was at Elaine's when the alleged incident took place to testify."

And that's all I know, I'm afraid.